Kanta Rani, Kurukshetra vs Assessee on 18 August, 2015
1. Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT, 123 ITR 181 (Allahabd);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 50 (1.15 seconds)Dipika M.Vora, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 2 July, 2012
4. We have perused the orders of authorities below. It is found that the
assessee agreed to assess the short term capital again as business income
on ordersheet dated 03.11.2010 herself. The CIT(A) has considered the
aspect of agreed assessment in his order and relied on the order of the
Allahabad High Court in case of Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT (supra),
wherein Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that when assessment is
made on agreed basis, no appeal can lie u/s. 246 (c). Further, such type of
prohibition is also there u/s. 96(3) of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The legal
position on agreed addition is as under:
Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs Asstt. Cit on 26 November, 2001
Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd. And Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 November, 2001
In Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT (supra) the assessee had declared cost of centering machines at Rs. 9,434 per machine. The ITO had the report of Vigilance Bureau and a board of experts in respect of cost of manufacturing machines which according to them after deducting 25 per cent profit for the trader came to Rs. 7,331 per machine. The assessee was confronted with this report, upon which a partner of the firm sent a letter stating that although the cost of machine was much more than calculated by the board of experts, its income may be worked out on the basis of experts' report. On these facts, the Hon'ble Court held that the letter of the partner of the assessee-firm, being a voluntary one and assessee having regard to the cost of machine being worked out on the basis of experts report, the ITO was justified in working out the profit on the sales of these machines by deducting the cost price as worked out by the experts from the sale proceeds. The Court held that Tribunal was right in holding that no appeal lay to AAC from such order.
Income-Tax Officer vs Sippy Films on 24 May, 1982
Now remains the consideration of the few decisions cited by the learned standing counsel. The first decision is that of the Bombay High Court which has already been referred to by us above. If we look to the facts, it is clear that there is a positive concession or agreement and in these circumstances the Court ruled that an assessee cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. The position before us is completely different. There is no such positive acceptance or agreement, nor is there any agreement by necessary implication as discussed above. Similarly, in the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT (supra), there is a positive agreement and, therefore, the Court held that such a person who has agreed to such a particular matter is not an aggrieved person to file an appeal.
Puspahas Agrawal,Noida vs Dcit, Central Circle, Ghaziabad on 4 December, 2024
17. Learned Department Representative of Department of Revenue
submitted that the Learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition of Rs.
6,00,00,000/- made by A.O. by relying on the statement of the
assessee, recorded on oath during search and page no. 2 & 3 of
annexure A-1 seized during search being the "cash to be received
back against purchase bill to be discussed and reconcile with
management", in view of the ratio of decision in case of B. Kishore
Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-
IV(1), Chennai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras), Sterling
Machine Tools V. CIT 122 ITR 926 and Bhagirath Aggarwal V. CIT
122 ITR 926. Learned CIT(A) also erred in holding that the
11 ITA Nos.1176 /Del/2021 & Ors.
retraction letter filed by the assessee after 110 days of search in
view of the ratio of decision in the case of Bannalal Jat
Constructions (P.)
Dcit, Cc-1, Noida vs Amit Modi, Delhi on 4 December, 2024
17. Learned Department Representative of Department of Revenue
submitted that the Learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition of Rs.
6,00,00,000/- made by A.O. by relying on the statement of the
assessee, recorded on oath during search and page no. 2 & 3 of
annexure A-1 seized during search being the "cash to be received
back against purchase bill to be discussed and reconcile with
management", in view of the ratio of decision in case of B. Kishore
Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-
IV(1), Chennai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras), Sterling
Machine Tools V. CIT 122 ITR 926 and Bhagirath Aggarwal V. CIT
122 ITR 926. Learned CIT(A) also erred in holding that the
11 ITA Nos.1176 /Del/2021 & Ors.
retraction letter filed by the assessee after 110 days of search in
view of the ratio of decision in the case of Bannalal Jat
Constructions (P.)
Dhanji R. Zalte vs The Asstt. C.I.T. on 13 September, 2002
(3) Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 926 (All);
Dhanji R. Zalte vs Asstt. Cit on 13 September, 2002
(3) Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 926 (All.);
Smt. Dhan Kaur vs Controller Of Estate Duty. on 16 March, 1997
7. A question about the validity of the reopening of assessment under s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961, was examined by the Allahabad High Court in Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 926 (All). In that case, the assessee had been assessed for the asst. yr. 1965-66. During the course of assessment for the next year, the ITO found that, on enquiry by the Vigilance Bureau and the Board of Experts, the actual cost of a centering machine was Rs. 7,331, whereas the assessee had claimed the same at Rs. 9,432. The partner of the firm was confronted with that report and, thereupon, the partner gave a note in writing to the ITO, stating that the cost was much more and that he was willing to have the income being worked out on that basis. It was held that the admission was the best evidence and did constitute information within the meaning of s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961.